In the U.S., we think we need to deploy the same strategy, if you will, by starting to build the base of the brand maybe a little more slowly than we would have liked, allowing consumers to really connect with it because it’s an authentic hydration product. And then, ultimately, we end up in those big retailers, where we’re already positioned today using the distribution channels that we’re all familiar with. But I think going direct into those retailers without working on building up the base and trying to do it maybe across the entirety of the U.S. was a bit of an overreach for a company our size and so, where we just decided to retrench the business a little bit in the U.S.
Operator: Your next question comes from Aaron Grey at Alliance Global Partners. Please go ahead.
Aaron Grey: So, for me, I just want to touch on, Canopy USA has disclosed the updated structure of it. So, really just want to talk about the ability to finance the U.S. operations, once this closes. Obviously, won’t be consolidating, so you can comply with NASDAQ. But just future funding the ability to do that, will you be able to have any benefit from publicly listing on NASDAQ, would you have to go through some other venture with just Canopy USA? Just any help in that. And then just also, I guess, plans overall in terms — for funding that Canopy USA business once this is closed. Thanks.
David Klein: Yes. So, a couple of things. The first is that I just want to reiterate that the businesses are already trying to do things together to elevate their individual brands, individual operations and routes to market, right? So, a lot of that work is taking place, even while we wait approval to file our definitive proxy. In terms of funding, on the day that the business closes, the business will have more than sufficient cash on hand to fund its growth aspirations for the foreseeable future. And then, really, the question then is if there is other like inorganic initiatives that we want to take on with the Canopy USA structure, we do have ways to fund that using the already developed Canopy USA structure. So, again, that’s not what I would — where I would expect we go right out of the gate, but we have the ability to do that under the structure as it exists and the business will be well-funded on day one.
Judy Hong: And I would just add on, just the benefit of having a brand-led asset-light model in the U.S. really does — minimize the capital requirements to really build out the business and scale. So we’re obviously deploying similar strategy in Canada, and I think it’s important for people to understand sort of the reasons why we took this strategy in Canada as well, it’s really about ensuring that there is minimal capital requirements to build out a strong presence at scale.
David Klein: And we’ve seen it work at Wana where they’ve always been asset-light and continue to grow their brand and have a very attractive P&L as a result of that. We’re seeing that same sort of mindset at Jetty and then Acreage ends up being a little more capital intensive. But again, I think over time, we would look to be as asset light as possible in the U.S. just as we are in Canada to call that.
Operator: Your next question comes from John Zamparo at CIBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
John Zamparo: I wanted to touch on the going concern language and just solvency generally. And given the state of the balance sheet and the magnitude of the gap to get to positive EBITDA. I wonder if you’re considering selling any of the business units outright. And then secondly, assuming you get the outcome you want on Canopy USA and you’re then able to issue more equity, I wonder how you’d go about that, what’s your willingness to do it? And just given the state of the Canada space, generally, what would be your plans on issuing more equity in the future? Thank you.
